PDA

View Full Version : The Structure of Language



GeistFaust
09-08-2011, 12:18 AM
My topic would be too short to fit into one description. Rather it would be more appropriate to let my reader know that what I am about to say concerning language is not completely within my grasp but I will do my best to grasp it and to express it through adequate grammar and sentence structure.


We must first evaluate the historical origins of language for language it as another one of the archiac and primitive means mankind as a whole has used to take up a certain relation to the real world which he is presented with. Thus language in general can be said to be that which garners us practicality in relating to the objects that are presented to us in our ordinary day to day lives.


We must not concern ourselves too much about going into details concerning specific languages that we have to speak to express ourselves in the present day world. Rather we should look more for the basic and fundamental principles which unite the expressions and modes of language we use to interject and mediate between that which is real and psychological. In order to investigate the basic and fundamental nature of language it would be appropriate to study the more specific details of it although in a broadly defined way.



I will only illustrate an example when need be to define a fact which I have clearly pointed out. Now the primitive man whose brain was not yet developed to use language in the quite the way we fundamentally understand it in this present day was still language despite the fact it lacked certain complexes and structures which defines our language systems from the primitive man. We need not only realize that narrow understanding of language reflected the narrow capacity man had to think and innovate in respect to his environment.



This is because a thought is a direct result of language whether this language be depicted to us verbally or through images. A thought determines the essence of language and thus represents the simple form of language. This is to say a thought does not exist so much in our mind but is impressed on it by its environment and the objects presented to it in its reality.


A proper or adequate language simply was not know to the primitive man because he lacked comprehensive or adequate expression of "thought." In part this was due to the superiority which the objective world held over his subjective capacity to use language properly.



Quite like an infant the primitive's mode of expressing himself in a communicative format tended to be non-verbal and focused around images most likely which impressed a discrete but yet ever self evident fact. This fact itself was a predetermined state in which all other logical positions referred to in language were confined to. This predetermined state can never be adequately expressed regardless of how complex or advanced a language might become. Simply our language depends upon this pre-determined state to operate whatsoever.




Also this simple fact which presents itself in the object and which is objectified to through the senses can never appear in the way it is sensed to the intellect. Yet it is this simple image which necessitates us into developing a more complex use and grasp of these images and applying our intellect to these images not so much to interject our opinions but to accord ourselves to the facts themselves. The use of words thus became something which man eventually and gradually capable of not due to any great intellectual projection on thought itself but rather due to microbiological causes which necessitated such advancements to be necessary logical incidents.




These necessary logical incidents were determined by the senses in correlation with the objects of the world and the general sphere of empirical matters. As we can see as man's capacity for expressing language in a more symbolical way to himself in reference to the reality and environment which surrounded him took its form in Cuneiform, Hierogylphics, and Sanskrit.



These languages were represented by symbolic expressions which although might appear and simplisitic to the modern man speaking English, German, Polish, ect were in and of themselves the beginning of the thematicization of language in a proper and adequate way. The irony and paradox of asserting these types of languages as being the first representatives of authentic and true language is that the primitive modes of expressing language were no less true or false rather they simply correlated although in a non determinant way to the same things which were Cuneiform, Hieroglyphics, and Sanskrit were all trying to explain and describe in theory.




This though does negate the practical and productive capacity which more symbol oriented languages possess in relation to means of communication which tend to lack any grammatical or syntatical structure. The practicality of a language depends on the perception which an individual or community is coming from. The primitive man might have found just like an infant that their means of communication although lacking complex and advanced structures generally used in expressing a relation to the objects of reality. The primitive man just like the infant might have found his language constructive, practical, and structured when instead the opposite was the case.




The primitive man was blinded by the impression which images and pictures had on his mind whether these images or pictoral frameworks were determined through the senses by external objects, thought, or internal psychological processes and operations. Language is strictly the stringing together through symbols and means of expression to represent a community of facts which present themselves to us through reality. The primitive man had an inadequate understanding of both these propositional fact which I have layed down before you guys as well as being able to understand the fundamental impression of the object on his senses which garnered himself self awareness.



A a syntatical or grammatical structure is supposed to represent a the means of expression namely words in which we are able to attempt to grasp the truth of our reality presented to us by objects. The truth itself has no relation to a syntatical or grammatical structure per se but operates independently of itself and other "truths" which presents themselves in the transcendental manifold of space through objects. These objects are communicated to us or better yet impressed on us through the senses which act as a passive agent in receiving the facts pure of all linguistic interjection.



Although a "fact" or "set of facts" does not take up any known or relatable position to our linguistic complexes and structures they nonetheless necessitate us though ever so gradually over the ages to compile and compound through the determination of our senses an ever more progressed and advanced form of that which naturally coincides with a discrete fact. A discrete fact or set of facts might not be necessarily as discrete as my use of language here might indicate to the general observer rather a discrete fact appears to us and is even relatable to us in so far as we are capable of attaching some sort of linguistic meaning to it. That is generally objects which are in and of themselves real with or without validation through our experience only takes a certain relation to us through linguistic structures namely grammar and syntax.



The context in which an object is spoken of generally is inferred in the indicative powers which the grammatical and syntatical possesses in attempting to point out the description and nature of a fact which is neither true or false. The description or nature of an object is naturally predetermined as well as the relation which the subject will take up to it. This predetermined state reveals itself although in a non thinking way which can never be determined through the use of language. This revelation so to speak only takes up a relation to the subject thematically speaking in so far as he attempts to describe it through language.



The revelation itself affects us in a psychological way but does not limit itself to this in theory but its affect on our language is quite indirect and unknown to us and this is because the object itself determines itself in such a way in which it limits its capacity to determine and apply the primitive nature of language to the subject to the senses. This "limitation" of communication effectively serves as the "mediating" force through which all of our advanced and complex means of describing the facts, images, and pictures of the objects of our reality as well as our psychological state is simply limited to describing things only concerned with the "limitation" itself whether we are conscious or not of this fact.



Therefore language can not describe why a certain person feels the need to describe and construct a linguistic term in relation to a "specific" object which the senses "perceive". Therefore our language is "individualistically" defined in so far as this means the communal sense which suspends itself above each individual. Each individual who is capable of the use of language not necessarily in a thematic way has a fundamental fact which suspends itself and permeates quite unconsciously in the framework which the individual uses to construct a linguistic interpretation of himself and the objects of reality.



But essentially a language itself is predicated by a communitative sense of self whether individuals realize this or not and a language is supposedly reflective of the ethnic, anthropological, and cultural composition of a people. Language is one of the determining factors in a people's identity regardless of how much diversity or difference which resides amongst those people. Therefore language itself reflects a similarity shared among a group people and thus takes on their personality, nature, and thought. This personality, nature, and thought are things which are determined by the senses and the environment in which a group of people gather themselves for survival.



Thus Language concerns not just the description of the facts and objects of reality as a whole as they are presented to me through the senses and memory but also preserving the fundamental nature of that "specific" group. A language will have a tendency to become broken and lost in adaptions, changes, or re-interpretations of a language which naturally will progress an advance throughout the ages depending on external influences both of other peoples and environmental change. Essentially a language always retains its original form in terms of its linguistic structure and framework but the fundamental atomical nature of language causes it to shift in such a way where a permeated change even in the language of a "specific" group of individuals is impossible.


A language can rarely make itself completely reflective or non reflective regarding a certain matter. The verbal component of language always precedes the ability to write language down in a scripted and symbolic sense. This is because the verbal use of languages depends on much simpler complexes than written language does although written language is necessary for adding specific detail to the general and broader nature of our verbal communication. As was said earlier psychological modes of communication are the most "advanced" forms of language for they are the encyrpting and decyrpting forces which permeate its affect throughout all language whether it be written or verbal.



Written language is likewise dependent on verbal communication because verbal communication although being just as equally dissimilar in comparison to the psychological mode of language still is quite differentiated inherently from written language. The main difference is that written language is capable of symbolizing the descriptions which we use in a more abstract way in verbal language to attempt to describe the objective reality which surrounds us in constant mysticism. Verbal language though is necessary to understand before one can accordingly write language in a complex and structured way. Written language elaborates to us in a more descriptive and distinguished way that which is verbal.



This is to say Written language is supposedly that which is supposed to be that which synthesizes syntax and grammatical rules to describe that which verbal language already possesses and contains quite naturally. All of this is "structured" and predetermined not by either of these functions but namely by the psychological mode of language which represents itself to us in the form of the archetype. This form represents itself both through written language which is intellectually based and through verbal language which represents which is based on senses and the images of objects which impress themselves onto our psychogical mode of existing which spontaenously produce sensations that allow us to relate those more simple words and sentence structures with the objects they correlate to.


Its only than that our simple means of expressing words and stringing these words according to certain spelling rules in coherent sentence structures are allow to compound and compile upon themselves making it possible for our use of language to become more complex and advanced. Not just being capable of expressing the most obscure realities of ourselves and the reality surrounding us but to exponentially build upon our capacity to extend our increasing ability to become self aware through written language. Written language is than just the extension and detailed description using symbols to represent what our language possesses and contains in a more abstract mode of thought.


By the way as an added note the thing we think of that is the object, image, or pictoral representation which is determined by the senses and the psychological nature of mankind rarely changes or adapts whatsoever in any sense only the modes and types of language which reference it change and adapt to it. This change and adaption is necessary in a sense not just because it is necessitated by the linguistic structures and frameworks which we apply to the objects of reality in order to describe it more efficiently. Instead this change and adaption is necessitated more so by the archetypes of our psychological mode of communication.


PS: Don't get upset at me for going against my word by not apply the correct gramatical structure to my sentences.